Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 907 NE2D 183 - Wright Tree Service v. Hernandez

Wright Tree Service v. Hernandez’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
January 2015
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Evans v. Yankeetown Dock Corp. · Noblesville Casting Division of TRW, Inc. v. Prince · Hansen v. Von Duprin, Inc. · Christopher R. Brown, D.D.S., Inc. v. Decatur County Memorial Hospital · Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. Roush

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In reviewing a worker’s compensation decision, an appellate court is bound by the factual determinations of the Board and may not disturb them unless the evidence is undisputed and leads inescapably to a contrary conclusion.” We examine the record only to determine whether there is substantial evidence and reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom to support the Worker’s Compensation Board’s findings and conclusion. We will not reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility. “As to the Board’s interpretation of the law, an appellate court employs a deferential standard of review of the interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency charged with its enforcement in light of its expertise in the given area.” The Board will only be reversed if it incorrectly interpreted the Act.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.